Dissenting workmen entitled to wages until 2005, not 2008. Court upholds workmen's rights.

The dissenting workmen were found not bound by consent terms between the union and creditors. They were entitled to wages until 29th September 2005, not 24th October 2008, as determined by the appellate court. The court upheld the entitlement of workmen under various items but dismissed challenges to notice pay and closure compensation. The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the order on wages but confirming other aspects, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Binding efficacy of the consent terms upon the dissenting workmen.
2. Date up to which the dissenting workmen are entitled to wages.
3. Entitlement of the dissenting workmen under various items like notice pay, leave wages, bonus, gratuity, and interest.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Binding Efficacy of the Consent Terms Upon the Dissenting Workmen
The learned Company Judge found that the dissenting workmen were not bound by the consent terms executed between Kamani Employees Union and the creditors. The dissenting workmen were entitled to adjudication of their claims in accordance with Sections 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956. The Judge noted that the issue of entitlement of the dissenting workmen was specifically kept open in previous orders. The appellant union could not provide material evidence that the dissenting workmen had accepted the consent terms. The dissenting workmen were not party to the consent terms, nor was there evidence that the appellant union had the authority to represent them. The dissenting workmen cannot be deprived of their statutory and legitimate right to participate in the product of their labor based on tacit consent or waiver. Thus, the consent terms do not bind the dissenting workmen.

Issue 2: Date Up to Which the Dissenting Workmen Are Entitled to Wages
The learned Company Judge determined that the dissenting workmen were entitled to wages up to the date of the winding-up order, i.e., 24th October 2008, based on Section 445(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. However, the appellate court found that there cannot be a straitjacket formula that the date under Section 445(3) is the only cut-off date for calculating workmen's dues. The appellate court considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, including the sale of the company's assets in 2004, leaving the company as a shell. The appellate court concluded that the appropriate date for calculating the claims of the dissenting workmen should be 29th September 2005, the date of the appointment of the Provisional Liquidator, rather than the date of the winding-up order.

Issue 3: Entitlement of the Dissenting Workmen Under Various Items
The rival union did not press any grounds questioning the legality, propriety, and correctness of the directions issued by the learned Company Judge regarding the entitlement of the workmen under specific items like notice pay, leave wages, etc. The appellant Ms. Triveni Kulkarni challenged the disposition regarding notice pay and closure compensation. The learned Judge ascribed sound reasons for negativing the claim for notice pay based on the provisions of Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act. The issue of closure compensation was not dealt with by the learned Company Judge, and the appellate court did not find it appropriate to deal with this issue for the first time in appellate jurisdiction. The appellate court confirmed the impugned order regarding the entitlement of the workmen under specific items.

Conclusion:
The appellate court partly allowed Appeal No. 163 of 2016 and modified the impugned order to the extent that the dissenting workmen shall be entitled to wages up to 29th September 2005, instead of 24th October 2008. The rest of the impugned order was confirmed. Appeal No. 618 of 2016 was dismissed. No costs were awarded.

---